The most controversial ballot in the history of the Baseball Hall of Fame was released Wednesday, leaving voters one month to decide where they stand on some of the biggest names in the game's steroid era.

Despite years of debate leading up to this pivotal moment, I have not yet decided how I will vote. And I am the president of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, the organization that conducts the voting.

To be clear, as the president of the BBWAA, I have no ability to shape the votes of the membership, make recommendations or even seek to define the voting criteria more clearly. My opinion is mine and mine alone, because our body is a democracy, and each member votes as he or she best sees fit.

But like any democracy, the BBWAA faces a pivotal vote. It is one of the most controversial decisions since the Hall banned Pete Rose from consideration for betting on games. This time, the issue surrounds performance-enhancing drugs. Almost all of the biggest names on this ballot are connected to illegal substance use in various news and government reports and, in the case of Bonds and Clemens, legal actions.

The Hall of Fame ballot instructs voters, all of whom have served as members for at least 10 uninterrupted years in the BBWAA, to consider "the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Bonds and Clemens are slam-dunk Hall of Famers when it comes to statistical record, playing ability and contributions to teams. It's integrity, sportsmanship and character that are up for debate.

Highest honor

My personal opinion always has been that I do not believe cheaters deserve the highest honor their sport has to offer. Steroid users created an uneven playing field, and did so via illegal means - not banned by baseball, but by federal law without a prescription for appropriate medical use.

Most Hall of Fame players are vehemently against the inclusion of players linked to steroid use, believing that steroid usage has sullied many of the sport's most hallowed records and that steroid users will dishonor the Hall.

Many BBWAA members, including some Chronicle colleagues, argue that the Hall of Fame never has been a bastion of angels and it should be the voters' jobs not to moralize but to pick the best players of their generation for enshrinement. And baseball has had even uglier eras, particularly the years before the color barrier was lifted, so you must judge the players based on the circumstances of their own era.

Deciding to hold my nose and vote based simply on on-field performance would be appealing in its simplicity and would eliminate a lot of angst. Yet the integrity, sportsmanship and character considerations are tough to ignore.

A past example

Another compelling argument from the let-everyone-in side is that the vast majority of players in the 1970s and '80s were using illegal amphetamines to make it through the long months of the baseball season. That is a serious issue that I do not want to downplay, but amphetamine use was not hidden and the playing field was pretty even because the usage was so widespread.

There is something about hiding in a bathroom and injecting an illegal substance that alters body chemistry that seems so much more subversive and character warping. There is great secrecy and shame associated with steroid use, because it is so clearly wrong. Players know they are doing something dishonest and illegal. There was never, ever that sense with amphetamines.

If I knew for sure that a player willfully used steroids to artificially inflate his stats or to gain an edge on the opponent, I would not want to reward such a person by putting him in the Hall of Fame. The problem is sorting out the who-dids from the who-didn'ts. There is no certainty.

Some have suggested going with sheer legal results. None of the big names in question on this ballot ever failed an official drug test (most years they played, however, there was no drug testing in baseball). None has been convicted of using steroids or other illegal pharmaceuticals. Bonds is the only one convicted of anything, and that was one count of obstructing justice.

Of course, the BBWAA is not a court of law and does not need to follow rules of evidence. Members can use any information to determine their votes. Some may use guesswork as simple as "that guy looks like he did steroids."

I have leaned, in past years, toward not voting for players connected to steroids in any substantial form, such as a paper trail, but all that does is ensure that I will make mistakes on both sides of the ledger. I am likely to vote for several players who have done steroids but hid it better than others, and I may not vote for some suspected steroid users who never touched the stuff.

Slap on the wrist

Some Hall of Fame voters say they will not vote for suspected steroid uses in their first year of eligibility, but will vote for them in those players' second year of eligibility, a little slap on the wrist. I don't see the point: Either you are a Hall of Famer and should go in on the first vote, or you're not one at all in my book.

If the staff of The Chronicle is representative of the BBWAA membership as a whole, and I believe we are, we essentially will cancel each other out, because we seem to be split on the issue. Were that to hold true nationwide, then Bonds and Clemens will not get in next year. Players must be named on 75 percent of ballots to get into the Hall of Fame.

If only the BBWAA presidency came with some superpowers, such as omniscience. Alas, I am in the same boat as the rest of the voting body, and while I don't want to fill the shrine to America's pastime with cheaters, I also can't sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

The only thing I believe I can safely say on behalf of the entire membership is that it's a crying shame that it's come to this.